Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description adds useful behavioral details such as the supported vote options and that vote weight is based on MEGAGOONER balance at snapshot. However, it does not mention whether the tx is submitted directly, what side effects exist, or the return format, leaving some ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only two sentences, front-loads the core action, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema or annotations, the description should state what the built transaction returns or how it will be used. It omits return format and prerequisites, though it includes the key behavioral detail about vote weight, making it adequate but with gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already fully documents both parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the enum values ('for | against | abstain') and adds vote-weight context, but it does not materially improve parameter understanding beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with the specific verb 'Build' and target 'castVote tx on Jestermogger', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like build_propose_tx and build_execute_tx. It immediately conveys the tool's exact action and resource.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly identifies the tool's purpose—constructing a vote transaction—and provides context about supported values and vote weight, which implies when it should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unmistakable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.